December 26, 2001

10:21 PM

Crazy talk from the State Department!“Any conflict between the two countries can have no good result for either country. They need to resolve their differences through dialogue.”
posted by raaka (29 comments total)

The implications of this are many, and I've got a couple of questions.
First things first... "U.S. officials are urging India not to provoke the Pakistanis and their leader.

"They will certainly fight the Indians if provoked. There's no question about that," Robert Oakley, the former U.S Ambassador to Pakistan, told CNN."

Six months ago (well, before 9/11 stuff happened) the US would totally have taken India's side in anything. They were arguably our strongest ally in Asia. Plus, the US's official stance on Musharraf was that of not recognizing his position in Pakistan, since he acquired it through military coup. Add to this the economic sanctions that were imposed on Pakistan when they conducted nuclear testing and buildup (which have been lifted due to their help in the "war on terrorism") and it's pretty astonishing to see how quickly the p.o.v. of the stated department has changed.

"They're already diverting attention and perhaps some resources from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban on Pakistan's western border. So the U.S. has a very big interest in this."
If the Afghan stuff wasn't going on right now, would the state dept. even really care about what's going on? Did the US do anything in the past 30 years to facilitate any kind of diplomacy b/w these countries? Until Musharraf's coup and the nuclear armament things, you never heard any reports on the situation that is now going to become a hot topic. Does this strike anyone else as self-serving?
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:02 PM on December 26, 2001

Ufez, are you suggesting that the official diplomatic organ of the United States government should be selfless? We can only be selfless when we do not have an interest.

As for the US involvement, one could begin with UN Security Council Resolution 38, some 53 years ago, which sounds remarkably similar to the announcement today. There's an interesting article {unfortunately cut short during upload, so it abruptly ends ca. 1993} I'll have to read detailing the changes in US policy on Kashmir. It should be obvious that up until the 1980s India, the "superpower" of the non-aligned world, taking arms from the USSR, vs. Pakistan, the long-time security ally of the US, devoted to containing Russian interests in Central Asia, had proportionate influence on US policy in terms of the Kashmir dispute. In the 90s the Indo-US relationship improved, while that with Pakistan withered; some would say that the Kargil offensive (run by Musharraf as Army Chief of Staff under a civilian administration) was the decisive factor in sealing the US attitude toward both nations. Meanwhile there were diplomatic efforts between the two which were beginning to formalize the Line of Control as a de facto border, so the US was happy to take a hands-off approach to allow the two powers to find responsible regional roles.

But it isn't astonishing at all to see the view of the State Department change, even though one of the tenets of US foreign policy is constancy across administrations. 9/11 happened, and that sent abacus beads slamming over to the opposite side with ear-splitting clatter. Bang, towers fall, planes rain from the sky, and suddenly it's a different world with different priorities. What came before is, well, history.

The trouble in the end, though, is that you can't necessarily judge a country by its official pronouncements, especially in the world of diplomacy. There are back-channel contacts and confidential discussions, which may be very different from what may be said publicly. In this case, there's little doubt that Islamabad is getting a private whipping from Washington for bad timing. Now we're engaged, through no prior interest of our own, deep inside Pakistan, and we've forced them to back down on the greatest foreign policy initiative in their history, the "strategic depth" policy toward building Afghanistan into a client state they could use as a fallback position in a war with India. This has limited Musharraf's political maneuvering room both domestically and internationally. I suspect that the New Delhi attack was not so much against the Indian government (the foot soldiers thought so, of course), but a hail mary by Pakistan's abruptly-castrated ISI, probably with a goal of cornering Musharraf decisively and rallying a domestic uprising. That, at least, has to be the "who benefits?" analysis. The question is whether pressure on Islamabad will lead, in actuality, to some kind of civil war. So watch the undercurrents as much as the press releases.
posted by dhartung at 11:35 PM on December 26, 2001

Crazy talk from the State Department!

Apologies for being so cynical right off the bat in this thread, but has the State Department given us anything other than crazy misleading talk in the past few months, if not years? Like I said, apoligies alll around. I suppose just color me bitter about anything from the CNN/Govt world media these days.

I said it another thread and it still hold: I do not know what to believe anymore

I guess that is what "they" want.
posted by dataport72 at 11:38 PM on December 26, 2001

Of course there is a big wild card in this: India has a very antagonistic relationship with China, and they actually had a border war in 1962, and several border clashes since. Even though Pakistan is our 'new best friend' lately, notice where Musharraf was the other day:
Bejing.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:43 PM on December 26, 2001

I'm confused. Are they with us or against us if they're against each other?
posted by holycola at 12:54 AM on December 27, 2001

Yes.
posted by Hima Otsubusu at 1:31 AM on December 27, 2001

Dataport, the other problem is not only don't you know who to believe in the govt., the press isn't being at all helpful in figuring out what's really going on either. Ever since 9/11, pretty much no one has been willing to report the truth about Afghanistan, GWB, and a whole bunch of other stuff that might make us look bad. Scary.
posted by willrich at 3:19 AM on December 27, 2001

that was indeed a good idea, light a fire in the middle of a powder barrel (ie, start a war in this part of asia without playing the diplomacy game before) ... yeah, americans are funny. Wouldn't you like to bomb another "powder barrel", we have some left in the ballkans (less funny, because they don't have any nuclear weapon - india & pakistan do have)
posted by aureliano buendia at 3:22 AM on December 27, 2001

The big question is, though, are they gonna use the nukes?
posted by Swifty at 3:48 AM on December 27, 2001

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah ii. 4; Micah iv. 3

More "crazy talk." If only the leaders of nations would make peace, not war.
posted by Carol Anne at 5:09 AM on December 27, 2001

For an Indian diplomat/politician, talking to Musharraf (army general/dictator) is like Bush holding peace talks with Osama in Cairo...

The concept is ludicrous, this man ran the bombing of India in Kargil in '98, the memories are still fresh, and yes the 2 countries almost went to war then, but the international response was completely different... and is different now after 9/11, but that is obvious...

In response to "The big question is, though, are they gonna use the nukes?"

India has a larger conventional military force(army,navy,air force) In 3 wars over the last 50 yrs, India has pounded Pakistan, and in 1971, Pakistan signed an unconditional surrender to India. In another conventional war India will "win" but will the pakistanis resort to the nuke...

If the war happens and pakistan starts to lose, in a bad way, I think they will resort to the bomb, what choice have they? Will India use it, not as a start, but if India cannot destroy Pak's nuclear capability early on into a conventional war with Israeli help and or US help, it leaves all doors open, and the result is admittedly scarier than anything I can imagine.
posted by bittennails at 6:15 AM on December 27, 2001

The Bomb.

remember that the US is just as close to pakistan and india as it is to afganistan right now, and US presence in this region will not fade quickly. if there is an escalation of force between india and pakistan, it is less likely that the US will leave.

both countries will do well to bear this in mind, as the US is one of two countries with immense nuclear power, and has sufficient capability at hand if it needs to assert its presence.
posted by particle at 6:46 AM on December 27, 2001

...and we know the one country that has no hesitation in actually using the bomb...
posted by bittennails at 6:48 AM on December 27, 2001

I have the same fears as bittennails on the possible endgame of this conflict. Am I the only one that has felt them (both) being a bit too proud of their 'new' toys? It seems like its not uncommon to hear one of them reminding the other in some way or another that they indeed have them.

I fear this conflict is coming, whether it happens now or two years down the line, it seems more and more an inevitable confrontation.
posted by oneiros at 6:50 AM on December 27, 2001

perhaps bittennails is a bit off in suggesting the US has 'no hesitation' in using the bomb. in any case, i strongly disagree.

also, i believe the US has taken in mind the opportunity it has with pakistan in light of the current world situation. someone previously mentioned that pakistan is the US's 'new best friend.' believe me, the US will use this to their advantage if an india/pakistan conflict erupts.

money=influence, and the US has given and promised money to pakistan, and has officially recognized, and closely sided with the musharraf regime. if pakistan shows signs of escalation towards nuclear conflict, there will be a sharp change in US policy, including a sharp decline in US aid dollars, and re-imposition of boycotts and bans, which will greatly diminish, perhaps cripple musharraf's local, regional and global influence.

there is little doubt in the international community that this land belongs to india. also, india is the bigger dog, economically, militarially, and population-wise. there is little doubt they are the main force of stability in this region. the US will, ultimately, back india, as it is in their best interest.

i doubt that musharraf will find kashmir is worth turning pakistan into a wasteland of afgan proportions, which may indeed be the neccessary conclusion to a nuclear response in this matter.
posted by particle at 7:21 AM on December 27, 2001

it just sounds like you're all discovering there's a war between pakistan & india - it's a long time they're fighting (actually since pakistan separated from india) and it was one of my big fears when us started to establish bases in pakistan : how will india react, shouldn't bush plays it in a clever way and prevent tensions from arising, go slowly, especially with the religious background of this war (and the nukes at both side) .... nobody seemed to care (appart from some european tv / magazines, and also i saw something about it on egyptian (i guess ... or was is saudi arabia ?) tv ) -
please tell me i'm wrong, tell me you all knew about this and you all feared the same when you saw us army settling in pakistan ...
posted by aureliano buendia at 8:47 AM on December 27, 2001

please tell me i'm wrong, tell me you all knew about this and you all feared the same when you saw us army settling in pakistan ...
Actually, aureliano, I feared it much more when Musharraf took power. That, to me, was the closest the nations got to full-scale battles.

money=influence, and the US has given and promised money to pakistan, and has officially recognized, and closely sided with the musharraf regime. if pakistan shows signs of escalation towards nuclear conflict, there will be a sharp change in US policy, including a sharp decline in US aid dollars, and re-imposition of boycotts and bans, which will greatly diminish, perhaps cripple musharraf's local, regional and global influence.
Aye, particle, but the part that really amazes me is still the total about-face the US has done with pakistan, going from an economically sanctioned potential threat to our "new best buddy".

Let's just all hope it can be resolved peacefully. there is little doubt in the international community that this land belongs to india True again, particle, but it is also widely accepted that if the people of Kashmir were to have a truely democratic vote, that they would vote for the land and for their sovereignty to go to Pakistan, as the vast majority of the people there are Muslim.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:07 AM on December 27, 2001

Can someone educate me just a little on the basics of "the Kashmir situation?" It's mentioned in the news over and over but never explained and I'm finding it difficult to catch up. Is Kashmir a city or a region? And is it a border dispute or what? Is there an outright war there already? Or mucho terroist activity? I'd find it hard to believe that these countries would nuke each other over one city... Tell me I'm missing something. Thanks~
posted by scarabic at 9:08 AM on December 27, 2001

Can someone educate me just a little on the basics of "the Kashmir situation?"

Scarabic, scroll down and read Kaushik's account here. He gives a very good synopsis of the situation in Kashmir. It's a state in India, BTW, whose soverengity is in dispute between Pakistan and India. Read Kaushik's post and you'll have a better understanding. Also, doing a search on MeFi will get you these results, which if you read, you may get a good sense of what is going on, as the MeFi community is very, very plugged into current world events. Good luck.
posted by Rastafari at 9:44 AM on December 27, 2001

Ufez Jones, i think you're right - but musharraf seemed like he was only waiting to have a pretext to attack, and the us gave them this occasion .... i wish they had first thought & discussed to try to stabilize this region, but it's a bit late !
scarabic, kashmir is a country, there is a map here : http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/maps/indiamdv49, and a quite good paper here : http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/1997/07/kashmir (it was written in 1997 but it's still quite actual)
- there is a bunch of papers on this site about kashmir : http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=htdigen&restrict=&exclude=&words=kashmir+
but recent ones require a password (and i'm not even sure i've got it, as i receive the printed version of this paper, and even if i had one, it would give you access to the french version :-/) - sorry - but i'm sure mefi addict will give you even better links !
posted by aureliano buendia at 9:48 AM on December 27, 2001

Just a quick response to: "True again, particle, but it is also widely accepted that if the people of Kashmir were to have a truely democratic vote, that they would vote for the land and for their sovereignty to go to Pakistan, as the vast majority of the people there are Muslim."

Ufez, that is not true nor widely accepted, if the vast majority, who are muslim were given a vote they would choose pakistan is false, India has over 150 million muslims, more than are in Pakistan and have had a democratic vote in India since Independance. How come they never left to join Pakistan...

Kashmir had a choice once, it made that choice like all the other states in India & Pakistan, now they should live with it, and if they can't, hop over to Pakistan, no one is stopping them from leaving.
posted by bittennails at 10:18 AM on December 27, 2001

Ufez Jones: Aye, particle, but the part that really amazes me is still the total about-face the US has done with pakistan, going from an economically sanctioned potential threat to our "new best buddy".

there is a well known method of training where the trainer will greatly praise positive actions, while destroying and re-building esteem from negative actions. i've seen it used to train horses, dogs, even problem children and teens. i suspect something like method this could be at work here. if the US can convince the musharraf regime that the carrot they're dangling is bigger and sweeter than kashmir, i believe they can convert pakistan to another US lackey, err... ally.

the US has a close eye on pakistan, and is recieving intelligence from many sources, including indian and other operatives, and fixed assets (satellites.) i don't think the US will turn a blind eye to an escalation in this region, nor do i think the US will side with pakistan if a conflict begins.

but i do believe it is now in US (and european) interest to prevent conflict in this region at large cost. the destabilizing influence of another race/religion-based war, especially one involving muslim participants, has far reaching negative potential.

in august, this would have been part of the president's daily security brief, no doubt. in light of recent events, it's rightly playing a more central role.
posted by particle at 11:23 AM on December 27, 2001

A Historic Treason :

Perhaps an independant research would clear the dark clouds of shame that "bitternails" has tried to engulf us within.

"Kashmir had a choice once, it made that choice like all the other states in India & Pakistan, now they should live with it".

The above quote from bittlernails' opinion piece is as much a lie as saying that the night is bright.

Before the 1947 divide in the sub-continent, all states were given an option to decide wether to accede to Pakistan or India. The Muslim states based their decision on the Two Nation Theory, which states that the Hindus and the Muslims were too far apart as nations to exist coherently, peacefully. There is a wide gap in culture, language, food and any other factor of importance.

Kashmir, still a majority Muslim state was expected to accede to Pakistan. But the Hindu Raja of Kashmir, called in the Indian Army to take control of the state. Acting solely, against the free will of the people, the evil Raja, exercised a grave act of terrorism on the peace and stability of the region to date.

This resulted in the conflict of 1948, where the Pakistan Army took control of somer part of the state of Kashmir which is now Independant Kashmir with its own democratic government.

At that time Pundit Nehru, Prime Minister of India went to the UN and a peace accord was signed which stated that India will hold a plebiscite in the state of Kashmir, allowing the people of Kashmir to vote and decide which country they would like to join. That vote has not been held upto date.

On the other hand, around the same time, the Muslim ruler of they Hyderabad state, decided to accede to Pakistan even though the majority population was Hindu. The Indian army also took over that region and the Indian government refused to accept Hyderabad ruler's decision.

All Pakistan wants is the right of the Kashmir people to decide their fate on their own. A right which has been accepted and agreed upon by the Indian government and the United Nations and yet has to be granted.

In that context, Pakistan gives complete moral support to the people of Kashmir in their fight for freedom from occupant Indian forces. There are three Indian Army personnel for every single Kashmiri person. As long as the freedom fighters hit Indian Army positions. I support them. May the get the freedom to decide their fate by themselves.

So, bitternails, the world is a cruel place with self interest reigning high. But please do not screw up history for the sake of achieving a fake and weak moral height.

Nothing personal. Just facts.
posted by adnanbwp at 4:53 PM on December 27, 2001

Per Adnanbwp’s post, 'Historis treason':
Allow me to point out a few factual inaccuracies:

“Before the 1947 divide in the sub-continent, all states were given an option to decide wether to accede to Pakistan or India.”

Wrong.
What states? How the sub-continent was to be partitioned was decided behind closed doors. The line diving the sub-continent was drawn out on a map by a British officer in about 15 days (I am not very sure about the time it took. I would look it up if it gets disputed. It has been a long time since the childhood history classes).

The Muslim League was adamant that they wanted a separate Islamic nation of their own. The National Congress – the lead party negotiating with the Britishers was not a religion based party and still isn’t. After almost a year trying to convince Jinnah for one nation, everyone gave up. Pakistan was created as a Muslim state. It has flirted with democracy off and on. India was born as a secular democracy.

The partition remains the bloodiest chapter in the history of the sub-continent. For those who lived through it, it was the defining moment of their lives. I have met old men whose eyes still water over when they talk about the trains full of dead bodies coming home from Pakistan.

The point is - 'States'/People/whatever never had a say in these matters. The ‘leaders’ decided behind closed doors.

“Kashmir, still a majority Muslim state was expected to accede to Pakistan. But the Hindu Raja of Kashmir, called in the Indian Army to take control of the state. Acting solely, against the free will of the people, the evil Raja, exercised a grave act of terrorism on the peace and stability of the region to date.”

Wrong.
There were over 500 princely states at the time of partition. These were given a choice about which country they want to accede to. The ruler was to make the choice. The people again had nothing to do with it. The founder of Pakistan – Jinnah, never made a noise about this either. The ruler of Kashmir made a conscious choice about joining India. As per the agreement he signed, J&K became an autonomous state within India with Hari Singh as the titular head.


“This resulted in the conflict of 1948, where the Pakistan Army took control of somer part of the state of Kashmir which is now Independant Kashmir with its own democratic government.”

Wrong.
Pakistan attacked Kashmir before the accession, not after.
The way we understand it, it was the Kabailis (Pakistani tribals) supported by Pakistani army regulars who attacked Kashmir. The way Pakistan says it - this was a tribal incursion.

Let me also note here that between the time it took Hari Singh to sign the treaty and IAF to airlift troops to the border, it was the Kashmiri Muslims who held off the Pakistani troops. One of the first guys who fell – Sopor is still a hero in that part of Kashmir. The city of Sopori is named after him. He was crucified alive by the Kabailis

“At that time Pundit Nehru, Prime Minister of India went to the UN and a peace accord was signed which stated that India will hold a plebiscite in the state of Kashmir, allowing the people of Kashmir to vote and decide which country they would like to join. That vote has not been held upto date.”

Wrong.
The terms of the plebiscite was that the popularly elected leaders of the people would decide which nation they want to join. Kashmir was an autonomous state of which Hari Singh remained the titular head until such time that election could be held. The first election in Kashmir was held in 1953. Sheikh Abdullah was elected the chief minister of J&K by popular vote. He and Mir Sadek – were the two leaders of National Conference. They CHOSE to join India. It is after that J&K became a state of the Indian republic.


Not only that, in order to comply with Sheikh Abdullah’s wish, Article 370 (http://alfa.nic.in/const/p21370.html). was incorporated in Indian Constitution which essentially makes sure that Non-Kashmiris can not settle down in J&K. Generations of Indian prime ministers have maintained the sanctity of article 370 in the face of opposition from extreme right wing political parties.

http://www.kashmir-information.com/Article370/chapter3.html seems to offer a fairly detailed chronology of events.

‘The plebiscite’ is a hot button issue in Pakistan and probably merits more research by people who are interested on the subject. I think it was stupid of Pt Nehru to even get UN in. But that is a different story altogether.

“On the other hand, around the same time, the Muslim ruler of they Hyderabad state, decided to accede to Pakistan even though the majority population was Hindu. The Indian army also took over that region and the Indian government refused to accept Hyderabad ruler's decision.”

C’est vrai.
I am not sure whether Nizam said he wanted to join Pakistan. But he definitely wanted to stay independent. (At the risk of sounding like a Jingoist, let me mention here that we are all grateful to Sardar Patel -then home minister to India- for riding roughshod over Pt Nehru’s objections and sending the Indian army to Hyderabad. He coaxed, cajoled, threatened, mollycoddled a lot of other lesser landlocked kings of puny city kingdoms to join us too.)

Today, I think we would gladly pay the airfare and the relocation cost to anyone from Hyderabad who wants to move to Pakistan. Let’s see how many wants to. Hyderabad is fast eclipsing Bangalore as the silicon valley of South Asia. We’ll even throw a fairwell party for those who want to go to Pakistan.

“In that context, Pakistan gives complete moral support to the people of Kashmir in their fight for freedom from occupant Indian forces. There are three Indian Army personnel for every single Kashmiri person. As long as the freedom fighters hit Indian Army positions. I support them. May the get the freedom to decide their fate by themselves.”


We would be overjoyed if all Pakistan were doing was providing moral support. What they have done out there is pretty ugly. They have armed, financed, brainwashed and trained to kill poor, uneducated kids from Kashmir until they have no hope left, nowhere to go, and no life to look forward to. The history of terrorism in J&K is complex and I would be the first one to agree that we have made our share of mistakes and indulged in our own share of uglinesses. But Beirutization of J&K over the last 20 years is primarily Pakistan’s contribution. I would try to cover that ground in a separate posting later.

The trouble with discussing Kashmir in a public forum is – people let their emotions dictate their responses and eventually it becomes a flamefest. That really doesn’t achieve anything. No fun either. Let us try to stay civil here.
posted by justlooking at 7:19 PM on December 27, 2001

...where the Pakistan Army took control of somer part of the state of Kashmir which is now Independant Kashmir with its own democratic government.

Hey adnan, don't bullshit us: if the Pakistani army took control of any part of Kashmir, it is neither independent or democratic, like Pakistan itself? so when are they having an election...?

Acting solely, against the free will of the people, the evil Raja, exercised a grave act of terrorism on the peace and stability of the region to date.

Please provide proof of this, we are not about to take your word just because you say so. 'Evil Raja' indeed. BTW, terrorism comes from Pakistan, always has, always will.

All Pakistan wants is the right of the Kashmir people to decide their fate on their own.

Yes, that's all Pakistan wants. Not much. Just a state under Indian control. Hey adnan, tell you what: As soon as Pakistan lets Pashtuns have their own independent nation, India will let Kashmir, a state within democratic India, join with Pakistan, a country ruled by military junta and religious extremists. I'm sure the Kashmiries are tired of all the democarcy forced upon them by india. And brfore you start, the military presence is there to keep a lid on terrorism, and if some Kashmiries give aid and comfort to the terrorists, then of course they will face the consequences.

Pakistan gives complete moral support to the people of Kashmir in their fight for freedom from occupant Indian forces.

Actually, what Pakistan gives are military training and financial support to terrorists who have strong links to al-Queda, the same group of people who attacked the WTC. Remember, Pakistan's ISI created the Taliban, and Pakistanis still "morally" support Osama bin Laden. This is what India has to deal with.

There are three Indian Army personnel for every single Kashmiri person.

Once again, please provide facts. Words are not enough.
posted by Rastafari at 7:22 PM on December 27, 2001

A clarification on my previous post:

When I said states, I meant states ruled by the British as opposed to the 500 odd mostly tiny kingdoms / princely states ruled by Kings. The kings were given a choice by the British about which country they wanted to join. The British administered India was divided up by the British based on their religious profile (ie whichever was the majority religion). It is possible that Adnan was referring only to the princely states when he said "all states were given an option to decide wether to accede to Pakistan or India". (although that seems unlikely from the statement he made).

I guess I am just being anal ....
posted by justlooking at 10:50 PM on December 27, 2001

A House for Mr. Kashmir.
posted by raaka at 1:25 AM on December 28, 2001

and we musn't forget that pakistani secret services, with the help of the cia, helped taliban to take afghanistan (most of the talibans were/are actually pakistani). They trained them (including Assma Bin Ladin), gave them weapons & money - all this with the help of the states, that thought this part of asia could be easily controlled by strong governments themselves controlled by the cia - as they did in south/central america. Once more, look for drug trade ....
posted by aureliano buendia at 2:20 AM on December 28, 2001

I guess I was amply defended...thank god people are finally getting to figure out Pakistan.
posted by bittennails at 12:47 PM on December 28, 2001